Search

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics of clients receiving home‐based dietetic intervention and to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions in improving nutritional status, functional status, and quality of life in a culturally and socioeconomically diverse client group. Methods: Participants referred to a home‐based dietetic service were recruited to this prospective cohort study. Dietetic interventions were recommended at baseline and reviewed at 3‐month follow‐up. Assessment of nutritional, functional and quality of life markers was measured using the Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), Timed Up and Go (TUG) and EQ‐5D‐5L, respectively, at baseline and after home‐based dietetic intervention. Results: Participants (n = 99) were recruited from consecutive referrals. Participant's weight, body mass index (BMI), total daily energy and protein intake, MNA total score, and TUG significantly improved after a 3‐month nutrition intervention (effect sizes 0.257, 0.257, 0.580, 0.533, 0.577 and 0.281, respectively). The most common interventions dietitians utilised were nutrition education, use of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) and meal fortification. In total, 339 dietetic interventions were recommended to participants at baseline with 197 (58.11%) implemented at 3 months, with meal planning and referral to other relevant allied health or Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP) services the most implemented interventions. Conclusions: Home‐based dietetic intervention improves nutritional status, functional status and quality of life in community‐dwelling older adults referred for dietetic input. Improvements observed in nutritional and functional status were consistent with benchmarks of change from published literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2008.07.004 Byline: Amie R. Frewen (a)(b)(c), Andrew J. Baillie (a), Mark E. Montebello (b)(c) Keywords: Cannabis; Randomized control trial; Treatment seekers; Adults Abstract: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most convincing evidence for clinical questions concerning the efficacy of interventions. When participants in RCTs are characteristically different to those in usual clinical practice, it may be difficult to generalize findings. This study compares profiles taken from a centralized intake process for those presenting with cannabis as their main drug, which were then separated into three categories, (a) those who were offered a specialist assessment for cannabis dependence over the phone but did not attend their appointment, (b) those who presented for their initial appointment, and c) those attending and subsequently recruited into an RCT. To explore whether issues such as severity of cannabis use and co-occurring disorders acted as a barrier to attending treatment or to inclusion in an RCT, we examined basic triage information. Results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences on selected characteristics between groups, suggesting that RCT participants were representative of treatment seekers, and that the filtering that occurs between those who make phone contact with professional services and those who present to treatment are not necessarily due to presence of patient characteristics such as coexisting medical, psychological issues, or severity of their cannabis use. Author Affiliation: (a) Centre for Emotional Health, Psychology Department, Macquarie University, Epping, Sydney NSW, Australia 2019 (b) The Langton Centre, Surry Hills, Sydney NSW, Australia 2010 (c) National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Randwick, Sydney 2031 Article History: Received 19 February 2008; Revised 8 July 2008; Accepted 17 July 2008

Self-help and psychoeducation have been identified as effective methods for delivering treatment, yet not everyone benefits from these brief interventions. Therefore it is clinically and economically useful to identify who is likely to require more intensive assistance. This paper develops a prognostic scale which predicts who will recover from panic attacks and who will require more assistance. Method: Random regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between predictive variables, baseline severity, and the rate of improvement in 117 people with DSMIV panic attacks who participated in a trial of a psycho-educational booklet, a self-help workbook, and brief group CBT over a 9-month period. ROC analysis was used to choose cut-off points on a scale made up of significant predictors. Results: Panic disorder and agoraphobia symptom measures were predicted by baseline social anxiety, and general mental health. There was no significant effect on the outcome for baseline depression or anxiety sensitivity. While general mental health (SF12 Mental Component scores) was predicted by the age at first panic attack, neuroticism, panic disorder and/or agoraphobia symptoms and a positive screen for alcohol use disorders. A prognostic scale based on simple additive scoring was equivalent to standard scores and significantly better than chance at predicting who would recover and who required face-to-face therapy. Conclusions: The prognostic scale may be used to guide the choice of psychoeducation, self-help or face-to-face therapy as the first step in stepped care. Keywords: Panic attack; Self-help; Psychoeducation; Prognosis; Stepped care